obviously, using the kennedy assassination. so i've been plodding through that one. all stephen king books -- it's never a quick read. anyway, that's what i'm reading this summer. i hope to finish 'em all before the conventions. >> for more information on this and other summer reading lists, visit booktv.org. >> you're watching booktv. next, david horowitz contends that tax-exempt organizations of the political left who present themselves as more aligned with the concerns of the poor and working class than conservative groups and the republican party have assets over $100 billion and outspent conservatives 7 to 1. this is a little over an hour. [applause] >> thank you. i want to begin by thanking c-span and brian lamb for filming this lunch and
presentation. you'd have to be a conservative author to know this, but the media world is so dominated by the political left which can't abide two sides to a conversation that there are really only two outlets for a conservative author that would move a book significantly up the ratings lists. and one of them is the fox news channel, and the other is c-span. you also might know this, but brian lamb is a nixon republican. in fact, he was an operative in the nixon wte house who was sent by nixon to try to get the pbs to observe the letter of the law that created it and be fair, objective and balanced in current affairs programming. and failed. so he, he formed c-span which is
funded by cable companies. -- cable companies. that's the only way you're going to get fairness. in our universe here. when i look at the debates that dominate our political landscape, i'm struck by the way in which the abuse of language plays a major role in shaping the outcomes. defenders of liberty appear on these political battlefields as conservatives which implies that we are defenders of the social status quo. yet, in fact, we are the party of change and reform. we are the party that wants to stop the cancer of government power which is rapidly eroding the freedoms that were bequeathed to us. we are the party that wants to rein in the nanny state, protect the integrity of the ballot box, remove race categories and race
preferences from are our institutions and laws. and march to socialized medicine and promote educational choice for the poorest children in our schools. it is our points on all of these -- opponents on all of these battlegrounds that have created the increasingly oppressive status quo. it is they who have reinserted the categories of race into our lives and into our laws and institutions, who have put half the country on the government payroll. and are eager to put the other half on as well. nonetheless, in the reigning political lexicon, it is they who are called liberals, democrats and progressives, even though they are none of the above. liberals are not liberal at all. they're intolerant, bigoted and rude and full of hate, particularly for us. if we seek race-neutral
institutions and color blind laws, they call us racist. if we point to the threat posed by islamic fanatics, they call us islamaphobes and bigots. the only attitudes our opponents hold that could reasonably be called liberal are the sympathies they exhibit for domestic criminals and illegal aliens. for the perpetrators of voter fraud and the denigrators of religious faith, for the thugger y of unions, they don't like. like the communists before them, liberals know what's good for us and are eager to control our lives to make us better. no more big gulps or incandescent lightbulbs or untaxed lemonade stands. in this all reflects the -- this
all reflects the reality that others are too polite to mention. inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out. of. [laughter] just as liberals respect liberal, so democrats are not democrats. when democrats controlled the white house, they make laws by edict. when they control the congress, they rule without advice or concept. when they -- consent. when they lose state elections, they descend on legislatures to shut down the very process of deliberation and debate. nor are progressives progressive. unless you think that reviving the discredited ideas of karl marx and jimmy carter is the way to the happy future. the book and that jacob and i have written which we call "the new leviathan," begins with the observation that democrats and progressives are not the party of the powerless and the poor as they claim. among the 12 richest law lawmaks
in congress, democrats outnumber republicans 3 to 1. 19 of the 20 richest zip codes in america make the lion's share of their political contributions to democrats. some as high as 86%. wall street raised $100 million to elect barack obama in 2008. but it's not just at election time that democrats display their financial muscle, and can that's the focus -- and that's the focus of "the new leviathan." it is in the space between elections, in the battles that frame the political argument that democrats show their real supremacy in spending their political dollars. "the new leviathan" is a name we have given to a left-wing network of billion dollar foundations and advocacy think tanks that work in concert with
government unions and grassroots radical groups and constitute the largest, most powerful political machine ever assembled. the agendas of this new leviathan are the promotion of an ever-expanding state and ever more intrusive state, collectivist rights over individual rights, the erosion of american sovereignty and the undermining of our national defenses. the funding core of the left-wing leviathan is made up of 115 tax-exempt foundations with more than $100 billion in assets. how does this compare with conservative resources? the left's foundations collectively are ten times as large as the conservative ones. the left is all frantic about
the koch brothers and their pile of money that effects everything. the koch brothers do have a tax-exempt foundation. its assets are $239 million. and that may sound like a lot of money. but the ford foundation is worth $10 billion or 30 times as much as the koch brothers. and, of course, the gates foundation is three times as large as the ford foundation. how did the new leviathan get so large? and, of course, what's senate about it is not only that these are big banks and permanent banks, but they fund networks of activist organizations. so if we're talking about 115 banks, we're talking about literally thousands of left-wing
organizations that they fund. the answer to the question of how they got so large is in part that they took over, that the left took over existing american foundations. the ford foundation is a good example. henry ford was not what you would call a liberal or a leftist. quite the contrary. when henry ford ii resigned, as he did, from are the board of the ford foundation, he wrote a letter saying, complaining that the ford foundation had devoted it money to attacking, to attacking the very system, the free enterprise private property capitalist system that had created the wealth in the first place. and that's only one. that's the big one, but that's only one. the macarthur foundation was
formed from the wealth of charles macarthur who was a right-wing republican, but his children were neocommunists, and they changed the whole direction of the macarthur foundation despite a fight by the board members that was lost. the pew trusts were created by a philadelphia family, the pew family, which made its wealth in oil and was extremely right wing. but they made the mistake of appointing a surgeon who they knew to be president, and before they knew it, the staff of the foundation, he was succeeded by rebecca rimmel who is a nurse and who announced when she took it over that it was going to support the values of the '60s and turned it into a left-wing
foundation. when jacob and i published this book, it came out a couple of weeks ago, senator ron johnson, the tea party senator from wisconsin, reviewed the book for the washington times, and rebecca rimmel wrote a letter complaining and saying that in her letter -- well, first of all, we had accused, pointed out that the pew trust, a once-conservative foundation, was the large funder of the tides foundation. the tides foundation is a $179 million foundation, was formed by two leftists, one of them the creator of acorn. and it's basically a pass-through. you give money without giving your name, or they hide your name to the tides foundation so they can give it to really radical causes.
and if you look at the list of foundations that fund tides, you will find all the venerable foundations or what were once venerable foundations in american public life. it's not only ford, but it's also rock ferrell, carnegie -- rockefeller, carnegie, kellogg, hue let, packard, joyce. these are all at a level of a billion dollars, and i haven't even mentioned the soros foundation. which is twice as big as the biggest conservative foundation. it's a billion dollar foundation. the -- i forgot where i was going. oh, rebecca rimmel, yes. so she complained because we said they were the largest funder of tides. she said, well, we haven't funded tides in ten years, not since 2002 except for a $400,000
grant for dental, whatever, charity. and she said we haven't deviated from the views of the founders. and when i read this, i said think of the arrogance of lying so brazenly when you could just go up on the web and find out that she's a liar. the pew family complained. where i learned about this, this was a series of articles in the "philadelphia inquirer" about 15 years ago. which was of a series of how the pew trusts were taken over. they didn't use my language and describe these people as who they actually are which is, you know, progressives, neocommunists, people whose goal is to dismantle the free enterprise capitalist system and
the system of individual rights. but they did describe, they did quote the pew family mightily complaining. then i sent my researcher up to the web, and immediately he found out, of course, that pew had given millions of dollars to tides in the last couple of years. but they're so confident in their ability to get away with lying that they feel free to lie. and let me mention at this point that the research for this book almost -- i don't know if it's half of the book, but an awful lot of the book are charts. mike bauer did these charts which have all the foundations and all what i will call the c3 battalions, the secondary organizations that carry on the political work. mike bauer went through 10,000
foundation records to isolate these radical found andatns their donees. just the tip of the iceberg, however. because as i said, these foundations then fund 501(c)(3)s. like the horowitz freedom center is a 501(c)(3). now, i've been aware ever since i got into this field that the 501(c)(3)s when you think of, you know, whether it's the naacp, the aclu, the environmental defense council, all of them are really a had doe political -- shadow political universe. because whenever there's a debate, i realized this when i was joined with my center's attorney, manny clauser in, on
panels debating prop 209 in the state back in 2000. it was an initiative, and it was to end race preferences. that's your basic political debate. and it effects, it effects the actual election. there was a big battle, for example, republicans didn't want ward connolly's initiative on the ballot because that would bring out the left to attack it and so forth. so it is politics. and on the other side where representatives of the aclu, a 501(c)(3) and the naacp, a 501(c)(3), and it was then that i realized this whole shadow political universe carries on the political debate between elections. conservatives hate politics. i mean, that's your basic -- if you're a conservative, this is a very ugly, sleazy interference with, you know, creativity
actually creating jobs as opposed to leeching off the job creators and lining the pocket pockets of your favorite causes. this is, but this is where politics, politics takes place. there are 553 -- i don't remember all these figures -- 553 anti-free market environmental organizations. these are organizations that blame corporations and capitalism, that's, they cause global warming. forget whether global warming is something that we need to be concerned about at the moment. there is also a huger controversy as to whether it's manmade. but, no, these organizations it's manmade, and corporations did it, and the solution is
massive government control of your life. and these are the people who respond sr. cap and -- sponsor cap and trade, who thought it up in the first place, these 501(c)(3)s. thought up cap and trade. what is cap and trade? well, it means what these people want to do is they want the government to tell you how often you can turn on your light switch in your home. they're going to regulate and tax absolutely everything that has to do with energy which is absolutely everything. how far you can travel in your car. the greatest threat to individual freedom that we're facing. leading these charges are organizations like the environmental defense council. and a creature of the ford foundation. it's now worth $139 million itself, but it's ford that launched it and created it. there are 553 anti-free market,
left-wing environmental organizations, all tax exempt. they have $9.5 billion in assets. how big is that? well, the environmental protection agency of the federal government, its annual budget is less than that. on the other side of this debate, as opposed to the 553, are 32 free market environmental organizations. and their assets are $38 million. you got that? $9.5 billion versus $38 million. mike bauer did the arithmetic for me, that's 249 times. are you wondering why we lose, we're losing this argument? just think of the environmental
argument. now, obama has said, he told the new yorker that the centerpiece of his second administration is going to be climate change. now, budget it just, what is it, two, three years ago that the leading climate scientists in the world were exposed for cooking the books and deliberately falsifying the evidence on climate change because it was going against them? we have been in a cooling for ten years. so you might think this is a little problematic to make, assume it as fact and make it the centerpiece of your administration. but that's what he's doing. not only do they have the $9.5 billion in assets, these left-wing foundations, but, of course, when democratic legislators put through legislation -- and many
republicans are snookered to going along with it -- who do you think they fund? be they provide money -- they provide money for, quote, environmental organizations which turns out to be anti-free market, anti-capitalist, control-your-life, left-wing environmental organizations. how much? it's $570 million annually. so $570 million annual budget for these left-wing organizations. and how much do they give to the conservative ones? $700,000. i leave you to do that arithmetic. it's the same thing with immigration organizations. how have we gotten to a point -- i was just watching gonzales and marco rubio who i think is, you know, would be a great vice
presidential candidate. he is a speck spectacular figurn the conservative firmament. but both of them referred, of course, they were upset by obama's unilateral amnesty, but they referred to undocumented immigrants. what the heck is that? did these people lose their documents? [laughter] no, they never applied for them. these are illegal aliens. but it's politically a third rail, at least that's the way they feel, to use "illegal alien," the only accurate description of people who have come across the border and stayed here without going through the process of citizenship. that's how powerful this new leviathan, this left-wing juggernaut funded by the 115
foundations with $100 billion behind them and 553 -- well, that's on the environment. there's 117 open borders, anti-citizenship, left-wing immigration foundations. i would give you just a little story so you see how this happened. the mexican-american legal defense fund is the leading so-called mexican organization as though it's a grassroots organization which it is not and represents the radical fringe or what used to be a radical fringe on the immigration, the borders. there's really no few more important issues than borders. that's how you define a country. that's how, you know, we have a civilization and a culture which is unique to our shores and was
evolved over 250 years and more. that's why we're free people. that's why we're a creative people. mexico has tremendous natural resources which they've controlled, you know, for almost a century, yet it's a basket case. and that's because of its culture. its political culture is so corrupt that you can't develop a wealth-producing engine there. and can that's why so many mexicans -- and that's why so many mexicans want to come here. so the definition of citizenship is really what this country is about. and if you obliterate the distinction between citizens and noncitizens and you have no assimilation process and, in fact, you regard assimilation as a racist idea, that's the end. that's the end of this country in the long run. bell, what happened? -- well, what happened?
mall -- a civil rights organization in el paso, texas, its mandate -- it sent documents to its constituencies which were legal immigrants. you need to assimilate, you need to become americans now. their political mission was to secure -- or legal mission to secure equal totally and equal right -- equal treatment and equal rights for legal immigrants, for mexicans who had come here, gone through the process and become citizens. the ford foundation took -- [inaudible] poured $25 million into this little organization, moved it to san francisco and washington, and now it's in other states, other cities.
and changed it entire agenda so that now it's for voting rights for -- it's not only for welfare for illegals, free education for illegals, you know, don't deport illegal criminals, it's for the obliteration of the very idea of american citizenship. and it's moved the entire national debate in the process. i'm simplifying because there's also la raza. this organization calls itself the race which will tell you that it was started by flaming radicals who hated the basic american idea. they hate the american idea. they want to portray america as an oppressive, racist, conquering country. la raza was another little organization that ford just poured all this money into and, of course, once the venerable
name of ford is on, you know, is on your docket, other foundations come in and there's a lot of corporations that are funding these racist organizations. i mean, i could go down a whole list of them. of course, the puerto rican legal defense fund is another one completely created by ford from which we now have a supreme court justice who thinks that judges think according to their ethnicity. and, of course, ford is behind the whole multicultural movement in our universities. now, the curriculum in our universities -- jacob and i also have written a book called "one-party classroom." but i've written five books on this. the curriculum in our classrooms across the country is that america is a racist, sexist, imperialist, classist -- it's
class call marxism is -- classical marxism with race and gender and ethnicity thrown in. and it's basically an attack on the very idea of an american civilization, an american culture, an american identity. and, you know, you don't have to take my word for it. arthur schlessinger, a very famous liberal but of an older generation, wrote a book called "disuniting america," said this movement, this multiculturalism is a threat to the very fabric of our society. it would, there would be no multicultural curriculum in the universities if not for the ford foundation. and barack obama would not be president of the united states without the new leviathan behind him. barack obama came out of
columbia, and the first job he had, his first community organizing job which is just another name for being a radical, um, was with the gamaleal foundation. sounds religious, actually. it's religious in the way that jim wallace is religious or jesse jackson or jeremiah wright. it's a radical organization whose goal was to get lots of government money into, into poverty areas. i'm going to come back to getting money into poverty areas, if i remember, in a bit. but that's where he started. and he was picked up, well, because he already as in college, already in high school he was a radical. so he was also picked up by the midwest academy. and these are funded by macarthur and ford and
rockefeller and joyce and so forth. the midwest academy is run by two '60s radicals or by heather booth in particular. her husband, paul booth, is an executive with the municipal employees' union, so you have -- this is where the alliance between the government unions, government union thugs and they're very radical. the afl-cio was taken over by socialists in 1999. john sweeney -- when i say socialists, i mean, that's what they call themselves. so, actually, they're well to the left even of socialists, european-style socialists. anyway, the midwest academy, she put him on the voter project which is an arm of acorn, and acorn is totally integrated here with the midwest academy. then he was put on the woods fund which was a traditional conservative foundation which
was taken over by a leftist staffer and split in two. and who did he serve on the woods fund with but the billionaires, a lifelong america hater, terrorist, unrepenitent. but basic to billy ayers is his absolute hatred for america. but he, of course, and obama were that close for 20 years. obama, of course, the most unvetted figure in american public life. be but they were, sat on the woods board together. obama was then put on the joyce foundation which is a billion dollar -- this is how his credibility was built. he was trained. the ayers/obama partnership went into the annenberg fund, the an 9/11 berg challenge which was
something devised by bill ayers in which they got $50 million from the annenberg foundation. this is how out to lunch conservatives are because walter annenberg was a conservative who gave $900 million to the left. that's, basically, what walter annenberg did through his foundation giving. anyway, the annenberg challenge was a challenge from the foundation to do a reform in inner city schools. the reform that the ayers did was to bring in radicals to indoctrinate k-12 students. but he never would have got the challenge money if he hadn't been supported by macarthur and these other, these other foundations. um, so his whole career right up to running for president, because where did the ground force for obama's candidacies come from? in those primaries to beat hillary clinton?
they came from acorn and the, the,seiu which is a far-left government union. run by andy stern. they gave $60 million to the obama campaign. the unions, those unions gave $400 million. not to mention $100,000 -- 100,000 campaign workers. this is, basically, what we're facing. now, what's wrong with these foundations? i mean, you know, first of all, of course, since the horowitz freedom center is also part of this universe -- although greatly outnumbered and greatly outspent like all conservative foundations -- um, there's something a little different in like the horowitz freedom center has 100,000 individual donors and supporters. so we have a constituency.
and we represent, in a way, that constituency. the ford foundation has no constituency, has no shareholders. it's just a board that was created one way or another to have a particular political profile which doesn't at all reflect the views of its founders or the money that made it. and it exists in perpetuity, and it's answerable to no one, absolutely no one. corporations have customers. they have shareholders. they also have customers. they've got a lot of people they have to please. ford foundation momentum have to please anybody. and and they -- the one limit to this is if you do something as stupid as they did which was to fund a terrorist organization in the middle east and, you know, get the jews upset because jews
are a powerful constituency, that's too big an embarrassment. particularly when you're located in new york. so the ford foundation cleaned up that little mess. but that's it. i mean, i'm sure if they offended, you know, blacks, they'd have a similar problem that way. but when they're or operating as they do, below the radar, people in this audience are, you know, well informed. i think i probably told you some things you didn't know. if you read this book, you'll find out a lot more things that you didn't know. i myself was horrified, um, when we put be up and, actually, the origins of the "the new leviathan" are a web site we've covered called discover the networks.org which is an encyclopedia of the left. and when my researcher, mike bauer, did the funders section of our web site, i looked, and i
said, fannie mae? freddie mac? i mean, these are government institutions. they're funding the left? and then you look and see what they're funding, and can they're funding radicals -- they're funding radicals, radical antagonists to our system. this is not a democracy anymore. this is a huge threat to democracy. and i'm hoping -- there is a solution, obviously. there are all these foundations that exist under the tax code. the tax code says why aren't they all getting tax exemption? because they are promoting the general welfare. well, look, that's the definition. i mean, it's in so many words you promote -- the tax code says you can't do this if you're supporting a political candidate. that's how they define politics.
support be of a candidate -- support of a candidate, support of a political party. that's partisan. that's not the general welfare. well, come on. you're supporting cap and trade, you're supporting open borders, you're supporting socialized medicine? that's political. that's what our politics is about. so the irs could just redefine what's political and what's charitable. we know what's charitable, a hospital is charitable because it serves everybody. education is going to be tricky because, as i say, i mean, the ford foundation's education dollars went into creating an ideology, multiculturalism, and institutionalizing it. well, you know, they put up money, i mean, for programs that propagandized or programs that implemented a specific curriculum which is -- i mean, i'll do it crassly, i hate
america curriculum, a curriculum that says america is a sexist, racist, imperialist, classist country. so education is a tricky one. another way -- and i think this is advisable -- is to sunset these foundations within, say, ten years of their retirement of their founders. if the founder leaves the board or if, you know, if henry, when henry ford leaves the board, it shouldn't exist after that. and, you know, of course, conservatives, conservatives are always trying to do the right thing. i call them gold star conservatives. they get a gold star. so there used to be three big conservative foundations that were boogiemen for the leftists. and one of them was the olin foundation can. olin said it himself, it did the
right thing. i don't know of any left-wing foundation that's done the right thing. i want to finish this by i give this out to everybody, it's government v. the people. where does this money go that's supposed to go for the poor if what do these government programs do actually? when republicans are put against the wall by leftists, people on the left, they say, you're selfish. um, republicans will say this government program is wasteful, we're wasting a lot of money in the public schools, we're wasting obamacare is incredibly wasteful, all this. money that's spent on these green industries, the u.s. -- it's down the sewer, just gone. which is all true. but we're always subject to the attack that we're selfish.
um, leftists always are the victims. you don't care about poor people. you don't care about black people. you know, republicans care. there's one constituency republicans have which is taxpayers. but the argument against that is, look, okay, this was a wasteful program. but, look, it was for such a good cause. shouldn't we take the risk of spending a little extra money even if it's wasted on such a good cause? well, what conservatives need to do is to point out how government destroys poor people. how it destroys black people. how it destroys minorities generally when it gets into action. i will give you just one example which is very current which is the subprime mortgage crisis. for ten years the democrats, led by bill clinton but especially by acorn and obama, said
everybody should own a house even if you can't afford it. i mean, they didn't put in that last thing, but everybody needs to own a house. that's the american dream. and so they pressured, they -- this is such an old term -- mow mowed. they actually got on buses and hounded bank presidents in chicago. that's what obama's organization did. until they agreed, and it came under enormous pressure from the clinton administration to remove all the rules for lending, all that had been built up, all the lending procedures had been built up over generations as what's prudent. who do you lend to? and that created this massive housing crisis which is at the, you know, the bottom of, you know, was a step in creating the
financial crisis. the financial crisis came about for other reasons as well, but one of them was that these banks bundled mortgages which people held, mortgages which people were paying into who couldn't afford it. okay. who are the victims here? it's not just the taxpayers. this is not just about government waste. the first line of victims are all the poor people, black and hispanic and also white, who were snookered by progressives into buying homes they couldn't afford and lost them. how traumatic is that? to go after, to be told you're going to have your dream and then have it taken away within a couple of years, actually? that is an atrocity that progressives committed through government programs against poor people, against black people.
an even bigger hit that the black community and also the hispanic community took, but the black community in particular, was what's happened to house values. one of the great stories of the last 50 years is the rise of the black middle class. of course, untold in our culture unfold in our -- untold in our culture. in 1939 4% of the black, of african-americans were professionals, in the middle class. 4%. now it's over 50%. what a story. however, if you are on the rise, if you are just climbing out of poverty or even out of the middle class, what's your main investment? it's your house. the clinton/obama-inspired housing crisis took 54% of the
net worth of black middle class americans away from them, destroyed it. destroyed it. $100 billion that black americans had, african-americans had, was destroyed by clinton and obama and acorn and these progressives. that's why this new leviathan, this massive -- and, of course, they were 100% behind this idea that everybody should own a home even if you can't afford it -- are responsible for. a permanent juggernaut. that's why it's such a threat. it exists in and between elections, and it shapes the entire national debate and, of course, the media environment. because one thing you learn
about journalists is that they're lazy. this won't get me a lot of -- [laughter] good press, but journalists, you know, you could look at it and say they're just pressed for time. so they get fed, they get fed by this secondary universe of the 501(c)(3) battalions and, of course, and there are just sleaze operations and smear operations like media matters which has an $8.5 million budget it got from soros and the clintons to smear people, but also to feed nbc -- particularly nbc -- and the other networks with their news which certainly isn't going to have the fact that progressives are responsible for wiping out $100 billion in wealth that african-americans had until they got into the act. ..
about this. we had for 12 years we could have done this and nothing was done. nothing. these foundations were the data. it's a disenfranchisement of the american people. there are plenty mexican-americans to don't want competing with them for jobs. but they don't have a vote like the ford foundation does. >> do you think the citizens united decision may be one of the bright lights on the horizon? >> well, this is a basic battle between individual rights, the rights of individuals to assemble, to organize, to have a voice and the collective the safety we're going to control
you. and yes, i think the citizens united decision was a great decision and that it has obvious the freed up a lot of friends, but they're going into elections and mrs. trench warfare between elections that determines the framework. it would have been empty -- unthinkable 30 years ago to check out onto good immigrants. no one in this mind would've to develop that. another example is obamacare. in the clinton administration when gore ran he was against it because it was so unpopular. when kerry ran, he was against it because it was obviously unpopular. but that jobs was obamacare.
but the socialist future was totally illogical, was not political minimal sense of politics, didn't make any kind of sense in terms of what was facing, but was pushed through by what we described in this book by these foundations. >> with the possible exception, it was cited by people how did the last takeover organizations. >> i can give you an example which ms. i think kind of stalled, a foundation committed $2 billion foundation in colorado, which we mentioned in
my book and it was formed by a gentleman and the people, the board at the foundation wanted to run a professional foundation. so where did they turn? the ford foundation and before they knew it, they had a whole staff of leftists. i happen to know people in the lord hath applicants were dismissed and so forth. this happened in part because of that, but there hasn't been enough publicity about what the ford foundation actually does. information is a huge problem. in the second thing is there's
family members around them. you know, it's not just white guilt. you know, the rockefellers were a pretty conservative american family. peter collier and i did a book on the rockefellers. 33 years ago i interviewed steven rockefeller who was a philosophy professor at the university of vermont. he told me, i'm a socialist. now he's the head of the rockefeller fund. which is a huge foundation of hundreds of billions of dollars and they fund radicals. >> how would one safeguard against such use quick >> i don't think you really can
if you're leaving money. it's a huge problem unless you provide for a sunset in the foundation. he can't foresee what's going to go over to three generations. that's why i like the idea of generating what is political. i'm saying is political dollars, you're not going to get the tax exemption. you're just going to give to charity, which should be hospitals. i don't want to devise a reform while i'm standing here. i'm sure some wife has been a tear out the problematic areas like education. but i think that is the basic solution. the other is you can't have both a miss in perpetuity. and what's the problem with giving the way while you're alive what >> hello, david. you touched on the bras, maldive and now these groups. recently we have this
declaration by mr. obama. these two parts to this. can you reflect on what the media seems to be unable to handle any aspect of illegal immigration other things talk about some woolly eyed view of someone who was brought here when they were eight and would've been nice to be nice to them and not talk about emergency rooms filled with the lakers, public schools. it never gets discussed. >> because it's racist. the left -- if i may just throw by. i was a kid when mrs. habited or my parents were communists. it is a article which told the simple truth, that 99% of the people who mccarthy interrogated were communists. that means they were part of an
international conspiracy. they wanted america to lose the cold war. they wanted with the most monstrous regimes enhanced jury in america. so whatever else you can say about mccarthy, who assigned to some pain. i have written critical stuff with methods and discredited the costs. but the fact is there was a huge internal communists throughout. which is what you would learn in any liberal arts college practically in the country today. that is the problem. so people in the media are
scared. even the ones who know what is going on are scared. one is they are scared. they don't want to be tarred and feathered, which happens to anybody. the good news is that kids in college, the ones who speak out have been tarred and feathered as youngsters, so they'll be pretty bold to make it into politics the congress and media. that has happened already. there's a whole generation of young derivatives who aren't intimidated to do much more intimidated our so-called liberals. they are scared because they will be cast into the nether regions. and i can tell you i left the left, the most difficult part was losing every friend i ever had and that is what keeps them there. that's why all the name-calling. all these things you say how compete will be so rude, so
uncivilized as the msnbc people are? that is why because it keeps people in line. the other thing is they won't tell you the truth because it will hurt the cause. i've been in the green room with bob buckle who has told me that he watched a very significant conservative figure right in million dollars check to jesse jackson because jackson was threatening to export him in the business. as you probably know, jesse jackson got by threatening a boycott, that means threatening the call to industry races a $30 million distributorship for his son spirits of extortion. it's intimidation. but why hasn't he told the
story? because he's so partisan that the cause and doesn't want to hurt the cause. >> i will follow up to that, which is i wonder if mitt romney would understand that most of america -- and the worker, most american workers, most american people to pay the taxes and were quite eager but chain migration and cost of schools and they want to know about every single aspect of illegal immigration and get no information about it. i wonder if you think romney or someone could tell from me to actually get involved in articulating this. >> there's two questions i think romney knows full well what is going on. the other is americans will never hear that. if romney were to talk, wouldn't talk like david horowitz, but even the reason they call it the
third rail is there'd be such a storm of attacks at bigotry in this amount really never hear the facts. you never hear the facts. you can just look at what is happening to all of us who try to point out that there's a serious problem with organizations in america like care and the muslim american society. in the muslim student association are all friends. so we are islamic votes, they get amnesty is all over the web. if i were running for a miss, it would be a death sentence right there. so it's a very big problem and that's why i'm thrilled about the emergence of the tea party. we need a grass-roots move in. i've left has done. this made the democratic urdu left wing party from top to
bottom. and now there's another dimension to this, which are these kind of social issues and run this way and it's a big problem. so i wouldn't want to be a politician. it's tough. sabato and expect romney to swing on that. and you know, marco rubio knows all this, but they understand the political issue. brighten up the universe schools are controlled by leftists, and media dominated by leftists. while the percent there's a problem. i think we've made progress on the road. >> david, cutting to the chase, who would you suggest should be romney's life there so we can
win in november? >> political advisors click >> i think he's doing very well. i like what's going on. >> who are his advisors? >> i can't name them. i know some of them. jim talent, debbie choi. i don't know who his political handlers are. i promised i wouldn't mumble here. as somebody who came out of the lab, when i grew up to the communist love to my parents were members of the communist party, that anyone called himself a progressive is basically a communist, post-soviet. we were ghettoized. we couldn't say what we believed
, you know, and we were targets. and we were quarantined. that is a good thing for the country come a very good thing for the country. i watched the last print the new left was formed by children of communists and fellow travelers like tom hayden, but most of the people who formed a new left were communists. and i watched this breakout into the mainstream and then when i was leaving the boat, he and the other communists that right into the democratic party and in the mcgovern campaign. mcgovern was a supporter of henry wallace, the communist party and for dh himself and i watched them take over the democratic party. that is taught me how important it is to have a grass-roots year in and year out movement.
and there's never been one since i became a conservative until the tea party. and i am hoping the problem conservatives have realized their creative, going into the terry. you know, when they're in the business you don't want to alienate everybody. they want every customer they can get. so you don't want to get involved in messy things that politics. so i didn't think for a while that it would ever happen, but it's happening. the last declared a war on scott walker and dared to stickiest arrangement was being threatened . they fund their political
machines as taxpayer dollars. they raise salaries of their members totally corrupt. they have absolute contempt for the democratic process. they picked the fight and they lost. and they lost on the groundwork is evidence that never believed in strong. and not tells me -- that's the bright side i see for the future. i think that obama has put fear into ordinary americans understand who are beneficiaries of the free enterprise system and the system of individual rights and who will hold onto this american values against the left. i'm expecting things in november. anyway, that's my up to miss him. >> for more information, visit
joining us here on our site is michael cader, the founder of publishers lunch and publishers marketplace. and he's going to be talking about some of the upcoming books in the fall 2012. first of all, mr. cader, what are publishers marketplace and publishers lunch? >> researchers that serve people in the book trade. he lodged the newspaper and rather someone who votes in brief, marketplace.com is the companion website and databases in the book business is to find each other every day to report their deals to get business to each other. >> are their subscriptions? >> is a paid subscription option to miss at the door is open to all, that the heaviest users are those who pay. >> i spent my entire career in both publishing. for many years i had what was called about packager come the book world's equivalent of an independent producer.
other major publishers to publish. so i did that for 15 years under my own company when i first started out and then i transitioned into the digital side telling other people in publishing about what's happy and publishing a decade ago, right before the first internet polls. a good time in her bad timing depending how you look at it. >> has it been successful? >> has been very fun, very stimulating. they go from knowing 200 people is a 45,000 people in book publishing very well. it's a very dynamic time in the publishing. so if you like change come in the future, transition, the job i created was fun because i hope everyone else in the world learn about that change can also apply to their business. >> the publishers marketplace and lunch has put together a new
item for this year. tell us what this is. "bea buzz books" >> it looks like a physical book where you're holding it. in fact, javits center is the only place you can get it. it is for passionate readers at home. the consumer version of this is called a bookstore in a club and is available in every major e-book platform. candles, notes, google, any platform people like as a pre-download and we think is the first-ever time readers at home have been able to do the same thing that happened here at javits center every year, which is to get a taste of some of the books that are going to be published until this fall. >> what are some of the books featured in the aquatic >> with 35 bucks and i'll put on the nonfiction side we have an excerpt to know young's memoir, which is heavily anticipated by
many neil young fan and in fact the excerpt astarte become the subject of hundreds of posts on neil young's fan board. but their follow-up is my church with. other nonfiction and a lot of very high-profile action. many authors speaking at the fair are probably broadcasting gina diaz, chairman archer who wrote the number that is not written in the debut novel. so if excerpts from all of the books. dennis vandermark helprin as well as a lot of discovery authors. authors writing their first vote, but who are being touted by publishers or booksellers we spoke to whether influencers in the publishing world as new voices that may cause an impact this fall and may resonate with them. >> michael cader can be of quite
selection proposed. >> we thought it was important and what readers do what is happening bookstores. it's really exploded to the point is being read by teens, but also crossover adult leaders. the chilly feature well known authors like little brat or david levin had, but again a lot of new discovery way says who publishers think will stand a chance of the next stephanie mondor. >> to put this together your coach publishers and ask if they'd be willing to admit some books? >> we approached the journalistically, so our staff wanted to look as we do for ourselves to get ready for bea, so we drew up her own list of
candidates. in fact it also includes an essay at the beginning but mentions hundreds of books. it's not just the books excerpt because we produce books that are notable, but we wanted to cover the thesis in its entirety. we then went to the publishers they were promoting here at bea. we kind of cross-reference those on what we found that around, got the booksellers come influencers. we also wanted to make sure we have and go avenue a along with two survey the breadth of the literary landscapes and publishers. >> were publishers eager to have their books buzzed about? >> they were very eager.
the brochure is recognized as the bea organizers they have to move from talking to itself to talking to its fans and there's nothing that makes the reader more excited than the work itself. readers want to meet authors and re-create things. bea itself is inviting thousands of passionate readers to the convention this year the first time and it occurred to us are needed to help build this bridge between the industry and the readers to keep the industry going. so i'm the one hand, we curated a selection that insiders here do business writer. they come knowing the what some of the big bucks are and have read some of them for themselves that they know which galleys they want to find and talk about which authors they might want to come to their stores. but a thousand people coming from the outside world will look at help them share in the excitement and in turn on the type to publishers, which they demanded is up if we put this in regular e-book stores, to admit
i got very excited. they said that's where world trying to get to is producing an early alert system that lets readers see what's coming. >> so michael cader from the website again if viewers want to download to their readers. >> they can find that information at publishers marketplace.com or we have links to other stores carrying it. they can go to the e-book store of choice and look for buzz books 2012. it's a free download on every major platform and many minor platforms. we will charge to distribute at that they've been just the two or three bigger stories that people might know about. >> and when will it be taken down. >> is for free until december. bucks from late august to january 2013.
so the values of getting ahead of publication should last for many months. we talk about it now. people don't have to read it now. you can enjoy for months to come will still give them a preview of books on their way. >> so michael cader coming to e-books outsold physical books. have a price that threshold yet quite >> so many look at the industry as a whole, e-books comprise roughly 25% of revenues, but that changes all the time. where the percentage is higher is in the brand-new bestsellers, were often the e-book will comprise more than half of the sales. particularly for fiction. nonfiction has lagged somewhat, something based on chicken. so when you talk about where e-books are biggest only have to think about which part of the publishing business to talk about.